EMMA: The Digital Services Act must safeguard freedom of expression online
Imagine a world where platforms can censor negative news about themselves, where they can make arbitrary adjustments to their terms and conditions to block or remove news stories and real debate between citizens online is curtailed. This is what could happen if platforms are not obliged to respect European fundamental rights in the Digital Services Act (DSA).
This week in plenary, MEPs will vote on the DSA’s final amendments. This is an historic moment for European citizens whose activities and media consumption, especially since the pandemic, have largely shifted online. Representatives from the media sector remind lawmakers that, without the proper policies in place, platforms will continue to have free rein on what content is seen by European citizens. This is unacceptable from a media freedom and democratic perspective.
Despite contradictory and false messaging, the recently tabled amendments to article 12(1) and recital 38 are not a „media exemption“ but would ensure the safeguard of fundamental rights online. Tabled by MEPs from across the political spectrum, amendments 511 and 513 clarify that platforms must respect media freedom and pluralism, as well as respect better communication with media organizations. We wholeheartedly welcome the efforts of a diverse group of MEPs to include this important safeguard in the DSA and encourage the Plenary to support them during the vote.
„These amendments draw from abuses directly experienced by media organizations, from the suspension of business accounts to the deletion of entire uploads. Making platforms accountable to fundamental rights and media laws should not be a nice-to-have but the cost of doing business. Moreover, preserving a quality and diverse media ecosystem is our best tool against the proliferation of fake news,“ concluded Conor Murray from EGTA.
„Our sector regrets that the very organisations that claim to fight disinformation – a very serious and technical matter - would publicly campaign against the media freedom amendment and especially overlook the substance of the suggestions,“ lamented Nikolas Moschakis from AER.
„There is no filter to lawful content in the offline world, so citizens should not be forced to accept such behaviour online. Failure to protect fundamental rights and media content online would mean that under a DSA without the safeguard clause, the boundaries of press freedom would no longer be defined by law, but by private companies,“ stated Ilias Konteas, from EMMA & ENPA.
Wout van Wijk, from News Media Europe added: „The DSA is all about clarifying platforms’ responsibilities and content moderation, including towards media organisations. As the DSA creates a risk of muzzling the media, such risk must be addressed right now.“
Wouter Gekiere from the EBU said: „The latest amendments look to introduce obligations to make platforms accountable for upholding fundamental rights and to respect media freedom and applicable content rules. No more, no less. The media sector is subject to many content rules at European and national level. Platforms should not override them, for example by setting different age limitations on editorial content. These types of actions put limits to our media and freedom of expression laws.“
Angela Mills Wade from EPC noted, „There is no justification for imposing on legitimate news publishers a second, parallel system of regulation. The platforms’ algorithms are not remotely capable of making the very sophisticated judgements which our editors make, and which they defend in Court if necessary. Furthermore, we have seen all too often that algorithms cannot understand context; for instance, an algorithm will be unable to understand the difference between a video of a terrorist incident used by a terrorist website to promote its aims, and the same piece of content used on by a news publishers to illustrate a legitimate news report.“
Without amendments to safeguard the fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter, including media freedom and freedom of speech, online platforms would be legally allowed to remove editorial content entirely on the basis of their terms and condition. This would lead to a situation where the boundaries of press freedom are not defined by law but by private companies.
